社会治理共同体及其实现机制

中共十九届四中全会提出“建设人人有责、人人尽责、人人享有的社会治理共同体”。共同体的观念起源于古典时期,建立在义务本位的基础上。现代共同体是建立在美国早期新自由主义以及当代社群主义基础上的概念,当前全球“社区复兴运动”与之一脉相承。“人人有责、人人尽责、人人享有”是一个整体,人人有责、人人尽责是建设社会治理共同体的路径,人人享有既体现了与责任、义务相对应的权利,更要求为人人有责、人人尽责提供激励机制。孟加拉国格莱珉小额信贷模式、浙江桐乡“三治信农贷”、浙江温岭民主恳谈会和参与式预算等三个案例表明,人人有责、人人尽责的激励制度必须以特定共同体的政治与文化背景为前提;政府是重要的制度供给主体,但制度执行必然要求获得多元主体协同;制度可持续的关键在于所有主体利益相容且在制度框架下实现共赢。     

我国警察依法履职免责机制:价值、问题及建构

警察执法需要强制力方能实现,但公众及媒体对警察强制行为的过分解读和关注,法律和制度对警察权“控制有余而保障不足”的现实,使得民警在执法时顾虑重重、压力巨大,直接减损其执法效能和执法积极性。警察依法履职免责机制既能满足保障警察执法权益的需要,也能规范警察执法行为、增强社会管控能力,符合法治建设要求。通过完善相关立法、构建免责机制、设立维权机构和提高警察执法能力,构建具有可操作性的警察依法履职免责机制。     

The Irreducible Core of the Duty of Care,Skill and Diligence of Company Directors: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey

The decision in ASIC v Healey raises hitherto unexplored questions about the standard of care of non‐executive directors in monitoring the production of financial statements. More particularly, it considers the power of directors to delegate areas of responsibility requiring specialist knowledge and the degree of permissible reliance on professional advisers. The reasoning of the judge will doubtless prove helpful to the English courts not only in relation to duty of care issues under section 174 of the Companies Act 2006, but also when considering the duty to exercise independent judgment which is now restated in section 173.     

We All Make Mistakes: A ‘Duty of Virtue’ Theory of Restitutionary Liability for Mistaken Payments

In contrast to the moral foundations of contract, tort, and the law of property, which are generally regarded as elements of Kantian ‘right’, the liability to return the value of mistaken payments is, it is argued, an example of the law's enforcing a duty of virtue, the legalisation of the duty of beneficence in a way similar (though not identical) to how the law might instantiate a duty of easy rescue. Accordingly, one of Birks's most cherished theses – that the law of unjust enrichment represents a distinctive element of private law – can be made out: it is distinctive in having an entirely different normative source: in virtue, not in right. But this result comes at a cost: (1) a legal system could function more or less justly without such a liability; (2) Birks's thesis that liability for mistaken payment is the archetype or paradigmatic case of liability for unjust enrichment would have to be abandoned; and (3) we would have to recognise that the ground of this liability is policy‐motivated.     

论执政党行政道德

行政道德是国家机关公职人员必备的道德素质。在贯彻“以德治国”战略中,首先要使以“德”为基础的价值理性成为“治国”的一种基本精神,渗透于国家、社会各个层面。加强执政党行政道德建设,有利于避免行政道德失范和行政腐败的发生,对于实施以德行政,全面推进有中国特色社会主义现代化建设具有重要的意义。     

职务行为的正当性之判断

职务行为对于实现国家职能、维护社会秩序而言是必不可少的,因此,很多国家将其规定为正当行为,认为其即使符合犯罪构成要件,也不一定构成犯罪。我国虽未明文规定排除职务行为的犯罪性,但在实践中,对于执行职务造成损害的,通常也不作为犯罪处理。据此,出于对私权利的保护和合理排除职务行为的犯罪性的需要,应当建立判断职务行为正当性的标准。     

"最后明显机会"规则的交通事故责任分配功能

由于当前交通道路的发达,道路交通事故屡见报端,人们的生命和财产遭受巨大的损失.一旦事故发生,如何认定交通事故的责任以及如何分配这种责任一直是个难以解决的问题.从英美法系中"最后明显机会"规则的借鉴出发,当事双方在一定条件下,没有利用出现的"最后明显机会"去避免损害后果发生的一方,就要承担部分或全部责任.交通肇事罪和普通的道路交通事故均可适用该原则.     

Falling into the justice gap? Between duties of social and global justice

The literature on cosmopolitan justice has yet to address what principles to adopt when duties of global justice and duties of social justice are in conflict. In this paper, I address David Miller’s contention that some may fall into the justice gap since we need to prioritize duties of social justice in cases of conflict. I argue that Miller’s analysis depends on three stipulations: the incommensurability of the values underlying duties of social justice and those of global justice; the need to justify duties of justice to their holders; and the need to consider the necessary institutions to realize and implement justice obligations. I argue against the incommensurability clause by showing that both conceptions of justice pursue moral equality as the underlying and commensurate value. Instead, I propose that the currencies of justice we employ in the two contexts of justice are different. Discussing the justifiability clause I agree with the stipulation that we have to justify decisions that affect the realization of justice to those who have to carry the burden of realizing them. This implies, however, that we may have to accept that some prioritize duties of global justice over duties of social justice. If this is the case, it seems as though the state has little recourse to prioritize duties of social justice. Finally, discussing Miller’s institutional clause I ask why the justice relevant institutions can only be those of the state. It is plausible to say that in our current world, institutions of humanitarian aid are effective means to satisfy duties of global justice.     

马克思主义中国化:我党"结合"思想的实质

马克思主义同中国实际相结合依赖于两个基本条件一是"吃透理论",二是"搞清实际".中国化的马克思主义作为马克思主义与中国具体实际相结合的产物,它的产生具有历史必然性既源于马克思主义理论本质的内在要求,又深深扎根于中国革命和建设实践的客观需要之中.马克思主义的强大生命力正是存在于这种结合之中.     

Precontractual Duties of Disclosure: A Comparative and Economic Perspective

If during precontractual negotiations a person deliberately keeps quiet about facts which he knew or should have known were of particular importance to the other party that party may avoid the contract on the ground of deceit if, and only if, a duty of disclosure can be found to exist. What are the conditions that must be satisfied to assume the existence of such a duty of disclosure? The European legal systems merely offer vague formulas with little or no operational power. Can economic theory provide more precise criteria? The general principle should be that a negotiating party must proffer information in his possession which is material to the other party's decision. However, economic analysis suggests that a party should be allowed to withhold material information if the information is “productive” and was costly to obtain unless its acquisition and disclosure were owed under a contract for value. These rules are discussed in the light of a number of cases from various European jurisdictions.